Since I apparently posted all of these questions in the wrong place, I was hoping someone would be willing and able to engage me in a discussion to help answer some, if not all, of these questions:

see arrrgh wrote:
Also, does the RIMC have any ideas as to how the wars can be ended, and the military presence can be removed completely from the Middle East, without leaving a vacuum of power that will more than likely be filled with something worse than American/NATO aggressors? Are there any ideas being brought forth to offer a real chance for a de-escalation of the wars in the Middle East that doesn't leave the people in those communities worse off than they currently might be? Are there any ideas other than "End the wars now"? If any progressive groups hope to actually achieve change instead of just getting their names and pictures in the paper, there needs to be real talks about how to properly address the issue of withdrawing troops (overt and covert) from the Middle East (as well as any other countries we've got operatives in) without leaving the innocent people in these countries (specifically the people who have been pro-America, or have helped our forces or NATO forces in any way) worse off than they are now, or were before we arrived. Without a real plan of action, what change can we really hope for?

see arrrgh wrote:
Other than the questions I asked earlier, which seem to have been ignored, I have more. What do the protesters want? End the war is a nice slogan, and it's easy to shout, but it means nothing in real terms--at least not to me. Troops have been withdrawn from Iraq. This is something that Obama campaigned on. Military contractors and a smaller contingent of American military forces are still operating in Iraq. Has Obama delivered on, or taken steps toward, bringing more transparency and responsibility (or culpability) to the military contractors like Xe (formerly Blackwater)? Are all of the military contractors currently operating in Iraq (or Afghanistan) considered combatants (or "security personnel"), or are there contractors assisting the military in other areas (communications, technologies, maintenance and/or medical)? Do these individuals factor into the overall number of contractors working in the Middle East, or are only organizations like Xe considered when discussions of escalation in the region take place? Are any of these things considered by the RIMC when protests like today's are planned?

Also, "End the war" would, I assume, include Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other global operations. Are all of these supposed to end and bring about change for the good, or are anit-war protesters unconcerned about the real threats (other that military aggression and occupation by US and NATO forces) that exist in these areas? If we leave the Middle East without bringing any sort of stability to the area, what is stopping the Taliban or any other group like them from taking control in the vacuum that remains? If de-escalation is to be achieved in any successful manner, wouldn't there need to be real ideas brought to the table other than slogans shouted by one-minded people who aren't any better than the crazies on the other side of the spectrum?

What real ideas exist for de-escalation? Does Chomsky or any of the others have theories to present, or is it as pointed as it seems to be toward the left? Everyone can point out the problems, but that doesn't fix them. The war in Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions. However, Obama made it clear with his campaign issues that de-escalation in Iraq would result in an escalation of forces in Afghanistan. He delivered on this promise, or is in the process of delivering on it. If this isn't what anti-war protesters wanted when they got caught up in the whirlwind of hype around "Hope" and "Change," then why did anyone vote for him in the first place? It's nice to think that you were voting against McCain, but two years later it seems like we're complaining about issues that Obama laid out clearly for people to question and understand. Yet there still seems to be no answers to how to fix the problem. Ending the war(s) won't fix the problems we're seeing. Ending the war(s) won't free up enough money to make too much of a difference in regards to our already over-engorged budget. Ending the war won't stop the civil liberty abuses people at home and abroad are experiencing. While shouts of "End the war!" might show solidarity with the fractions that have splintered away from each other, it doesn't really help anything. It hasn't helped anything for 10 years now. So why are we still dedicating so much energy to shouting slogans when so many questions remain unanswered? If protesters wish to gain support from the population, shouldn't they engage the public opposed to shouting at people who may or may not already have opinions on these issues?

I hope everyone who shows up to these protests get their chance to be heard in the chorus of chants, but I don't think this is going to do anything that the past 10 years of it hasn't done. This isn't the 60s, and the issue is further away from the Middle East than it seems anyone realizes. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm too far off. The money is where it all begins and ends, and until people figure out a central message to pitch for real change, we'll all still just be individuals who routinely group together to shout slogans and get our pictures taken with the same people we're always shouting slogans with. While lobbyists continue to be allowed to pay for OUR elected officials, the people will continue to be ignored on issues of marriage equality to the way we wage wars and use our military (including the contractors we hire).

(I recognize that I may be wrong on any number of things I believe. I welcome people to disagree with me. I want to know the facts on these issues, and I want to know where real change can take place.)

Jared Paul wrote:
You're a gem See Arrghhh. An absolute gem.

End the Wars. Bring the troops home now. Recall all CIA spies and murderers from the middle east and from everywhere around the world. Respect sovereign nations right to self determination.

Not difficult concepts. Whitey should stay home, and not go around conquering for resources and geo-political power grabs. People want their tax dollars to go for roads, schools, pensions, and health care, not for Imperialism, not as a front for corporations that profit off of war to stay in business. End of story.

Jared Paul wrote:
Also, I gave you many sources and spent a good chunk of time breaking down the thought process behind this action on the first page. If you try and turn this thread into one of your 20 page essay fests actively filibustering our attempt to promote this event (which was not posted for the purpose of educating you or debating you) then you will be deleted from it.

You've made your point. Any further replies should be concise and non-redundant.

see arrrgh wrote:
I was unaware that discourse and discussion were frowned upon here. I have real questions about this issue, and I figured a good place to find a few answers might be in a thread dedicated to promoting the actions of an anti-war group. Perhaps I should have started a new thread just so I could ask questions that people checking this thread would (hopefully) respond to anyway? I'd ask these same questions if I were approached by someone on the street wishing to inform me about their call to action, especially if they're looking to gain my support for the cause.

I like how you throw more slogans at me, though. These only raise more questions, and actually cast doubt on the meaning behind the action in the first place. "Bring the troops home now"? How will that benefit our economy? It will only add more people to the pool of individuals currently looking for work, and the unemployment numbers will increase because many of these people (currently employed by the government) will be out of work. "Recall all CIA spies and murderers"? I'd like to see evidence that supports your generalization that every one of these operatives are engaged in immoral or unethical behavior on the behalf of the CIA and the government. "People want their tax dollars spent on..."? Agreed, but that's not what's going to happen just because we ended our military operations abroad. The money's just going to get funneled elsewhere so it can get used to keep the rich in power. Especially if lobbyists are still going to be allowed to sway our representatives' votes. And these slogans offer no ideas in real terms. Like I said, they're good on signs and t-shirts, but they offer nothing beyond immediate demands. How long have we been demanding the same thing now? Ten years. How much have we gained in favor of our demands? Very, very little.

As for the "many sources" you supposedly gave me, let's be correct. You gave me two sources, both of which are leftist news sources that only offer one side of the story. DemocracyNow is definitely a good place to check out when looking for news, but I like to keep an eye on multiple sources so that I don't end up thinking like a leftist version of your average Fox News viewer. If you have more sources than just these two, feel free to share. I'm looking for truth, not idealism.

Your breakdown isn't much of one. It didn't cover any of the questions I had asked, and really only established specific points about YOU, not the organization. I'm glad you're just now coming to the realization that the Dems aren't any better than the GOP. Some of us, however, figured that out a while ago. A lot of your "breakdown" is useless information about you, the individual. Really, it just seems like you like to do a lot of talking about yourself while you skirt around the issues at hand. Tone down the ego, champ, next time you answer questions about an organization for that organization.

As for threatening to have me deleted from the thread for trying to ask questions about what an organization stands for beyond their protesting, I think IAmNiki said it best. It illuminates your inability to handle discourse in any favorable way. You actually look a lot like the people you rally against. Who else tries to silence anyone who disagrees with them? Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Jay Severin, and Rush Limbaugh do this almost daily. If that's how you wish to act, then that's your right. I guess you're correct, though. I shouldn't have asked any questions about why I should or shouldn't throw my support behind this organization. You're not looking to educate me in favor of gaining support, you're just looking to make sure no newcomers show up. Same old faces with the same tired slogans means tomorrow will be the same old shit as today, like today's the same old shit as yesterday.

These are real, honest questions that I have. These are also questions that have come up in discussions I've had with family and friends. I've heard many of these questions in a number of different forms from a variety of people who range from conservative, to liberal, to moderate. I think answering these questions can help me give these people better responses so that they can be informed about a topic that is STILL a huge issue in American (and global) politics.

Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:24 am

Charlie Foxtrot

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY

People aren't talking to you because you're being ridiculous. No one can provide you with evidence that all CIA operatives are engaged in torture because they're secret operatives. If you want evidence that the CIA tortures, evidence is abundant and has been for years. You can't just walk into a thread and ask a rapid-fire series of questions, many of which could be an entire thread unto themselves, and expect people to find news sources for you to answer said questions. The best way to learn is to do your own reading. Start here:

It's a liberal news source. The truth is there are no unbiased news sources. NYT/WashPost tend to be toadies who say whatever the government tells them to. Other news sources are clearly biased. The best one can do is find someone who doesn't lie to advance their agenda. Glenn's thoughts are always clearly laid out and he does not intentionally deceive. It's a good enough place to start. If you want to see another side of the issue go like, long onto the Weekly Standard's website or something.

Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:09 am

Sage FrancisSelf Fighteous

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21737

Let's try to keep the senseless bickering out of this thread. Or not. Do what you guys need to do.

This is an important discussion to have. The more we can focus on a shared goal among a community who is hungry for change the greater chance we have of achieving solidarity which is important for any movement. Almost every protest I've attended in the past few years seemed to be scattered in philosophy, organization and purpose. It results in lower turn outs and fewer "recruits." Something needs to change and, most certainly, a new approach needs to be considered. Dems mah thoughts.

Sage Francis wrote: Let's try to keep the senseless bickering out of this thread. Or not. Do what you guys need to do.

This is an important discussion to have. The more we can focus on a shared goal among a community who is hungry for change the greater chance we have of achieving solidarity which is important for any movement. Almost every protest I've attended in the past few years seemed to be scattered in philosophy, organization and purpose. It results in lower turn outs and fewer "recruits." Something needs to change and, most certainly, a new approach needs to be considered. Dems mah thoughts.

Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:22 am

See Arrrgh

Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England

I agree with everything Sage had to say.

@ CharlieFoxtrot.

One question, specifically asked to point out the absurdity of generalizing all CIA operatives as murderers (or torturers), doesn't make them all ridiculous questions. I also understand that a lot of the questions I asked can be threads solely to themselves. However, these are real questions being asked by real people who want real answers. I'm more than willing to carry this thread so long as people are willing to discuss ANY of these questions with me (and the forum at large). I'll definitely take a look at the link you provided and see what information I can gain from it, but it's one source offering one side of the story. Just like Jared's attempt at generalizing the military by accusing the whole of the military for the actions of a few, I can't accept one source as being the place that holds all of the answers. I'll question most of the uncited opinions expressed by anyone (forum poster, journalist, or anyone else). Sage laid it out pretty well, though. If there can never be a thorough discussion on the issue without ideologues pretending they already know it all, then there can never be solidarity in the hopes of achieving real change.

Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:02 am

jrspudsquad

Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 395

I only have time to skim through your post, but they seem like very legitimate comments and questions to me.

I definitely can't get into writing an essay so i just have a quick point from listening to all the coverage of the wikileaks documents that came out this week. You should check out the stories if you haven't.

Without getting into moral philosophy of war or US power, you can simply think about the amount of harm done. With the insane amount of verified stories of torture and civilian casualties caused by these wars, is it likely we're doing more harm than even a theoretical free-range Taliban could hope to do?

Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:12 am

See Arrrgh

Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England

I've skimmed a few of WikiLeaks latest releases. I did just hear about another bundle that was released, but haven't had a chance to look into them yet. However, I'm not denying that members of our armed forces and contractors hired by the DoD (not all, but definitely some) have caused more harm than good over there. The problem is, though, that there can't be any direct comparison between the amount of harm our presence has done versus the amount of harm done by Taliban or other fundamentalist/extremist groups because they (the Taliban and warlords in Afghanistan) control the region. We hear about what the Taliban have done through women and other Afghan civilians who are willing to talk to outside journalists about their treatment, but that's only a small fraction of what abuses these groups bring to the civilians. The reason we have a good idea of the human rights infrignements done by our forces and hired contractors is because we (the military, journalists, etc) have documented these things. If not, there would be nothing for WikiLeaks to release. There's far less documentation regarding how the Taliban or other fundamentalist groups treated the Afghan civilians before our arrival. We know from a few brave women that there were plenty of instances of abuse by these groups. To assume that this has stopped or slowed down in any way ignores the fact that things are still happening over there that we'll never hear about because of threats, or the inability to document something no one wants to talk about or admit to.

Instead of demanding our immediate withdrawal from the area, why don't we demand that the soldiers and contractors abusing the people be held responsible for their actions? Instead of generalizing anyone in a uniform, or any contractor employed by the DoD, why aren't we targeting the specific people responsible for these infringements on the Afghan people's human rights?

Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:12 pm

Disharmony

Joined: 01 Jun 2003
Posts: 3037
Location: Buried in Minnesota dirt.

This may be bold to say, but I believe a lot of protesters protest just for the sake of protesting. No matter what- they need/desire to have something to stand for or stand against. Even if the social climate is improving and even if there are strides to righting the wrongs of previous candidacies, they will yell through their megaphones and wave their signs because it helps validate themselves.

Sure a lot of the causes they're fighting against are important, but I've seen a lot of important issues be turned into a way of life, rather than a way to change life.

Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:17 pm

Sage FrancisSelf Fighteous

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21737

Agreed. But I think that's OK. We've never gotten close to the point where things were good enough to not fight for something. But right now things are so BAD it's actually important to consolidate efforts, get organized and be EFFECTIVE. Hell, with as much practice people have had with protesting you'd think we'd be able to make that happen. Unfortunately that's not the case. Time to be innovative, folks.

Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:20 pm

sarah q

Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 175

I've been to a handful of protest in the last year, mostly to document. I can't say I felt that energized by any of them until yesterday.

The Rhode Island Mobilization Committee were out protesting against many of Obama's policies at the Convention Center. We started out as 47-48 and were joined by several people along the way who were clearly just out for a walk. Mothers with children in strollers got in line behind us and marched with our group.

There were a few scattered tea-partiers when we got there, and our group was large and visually intimidating to both the cops and other protesting groups (except Queer Action Rhode Island because we let out a chants early to let them know we supported them).

The tea-partiers had some Obama as hitler signs. They tried to start arguments with a few members or our group, but quickly got shut down as most of them didn't fully understand what they were protesting.

They also thinned out and dispersed fairly quickly upon seeing how organized we were, that we chose to plant ourselves front and center, and that we had the energy and organization to stay together and chat for an hour straight.

We had between 65-70 people at our high point.

We also had the attention of most of the press.

It was the first time I was energized by a protest and felt like we were accomplishing something.

We scared several tea-partiers away and that felt like a small victory. Strangers on the street joined in, that also felt like a small victory.

Normally I don't do much chanting, I mostly just take pictures and observed, but as we walked past a bunch or racist, bigoted tea-partiers I found myself chanting at the top of my lungs because we out numbered them by a lot and I needed them to know that.

Last edited by sarah q on Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:51 pm; edited 2 times in total

Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:23 pm

See Arrrgh

Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England

sarah q wrote: I've been to a handful of protest in the last year, mostly to document. I can't say I felt that energized by any of them until yesterday.

The Rhode Island Mobilization Committee were out protesting against many of Obama's policies at the Convention Center. We started out as 47-48 and were joined by several people along the way who were clearly just out for a walk. Mothers with children in strollers got in line behind us and marched with our group.

There were a few scattered tea-partiers when we got there, and our group was large and visually intimidating to both the cops and other protesting groups (except Queer Action Rhode Island because we let out a chants early to let them know we supported them).

The tea-partiers had some Obama as hitler signs. They tried to start arguments with a few members or our group, but quickly got shut down as most of them didn't fully understand what they were protesting.

They also thinned out and dispersed fairly quickly upon seeing how organized we were, that we chose to plant ourselves front and center, and that we had the energy and organization to stay together and chat for an hour straight.

I'm going to go back and check the numbers and probably come back and correct this, but I want to say we had around 75 at the high point.

We also had the attention of most of the press.

It was the first time I was energized by a protest and felt like we were accomplishing something.

We scared several tea-partiers away and that felt like a small victory. Strangers on the street joined in, that also felt like a small victory.

Normally I don't do much chanting, I mostly just take pictures and observed, but as we walked past a bunch or racist, bigoted tea-partiers I found myself chanting at the top of my lungs because we out numbered them by a lot and I needed them to know that.

I'm confused by the fact that the journalist who wrote the article about the protests yesterday couldn't tell the difference between 50 - 75 people and "about two dozen."

I mean... That doesn't look to be anywhere close to 50 - 75 people, in my opinion.

Last edited by See Arrrgh on Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:54 pm; edited 2 times in total

One of the major reasons I don't attend protests anymore is because the central message, if it's actually organized enough to have one, always ends up getting muddied between four or five other groups/causes, all lobbying for the attention and support of the public (or in this case, the president too.) I mean, wouldn't it be more effective to consolidate one message for all of the groups that were there? Instead, you've got smaller fractions of different groups all trying to get a spot in the action, and in the mix of it, all of the messages get lost because it's just "some anti-war radical protesters" and some other people who have nothing to do with the anti-war movement. Not that i'm saying the Queer Action group or any other group shouldn't have been there.. but it seems like wasted time and energy to not form a solid message and get EVERYONE behind it.

I was driving around (see: crawling through traffic) when he came into town, and I was actually in Woonsocket when he arrived. There was a HUGE crowd of tea-party hacks and people holding signs in support of Loughlin and some other Republican politician hopeful. There was NO presence otherwise. I guess it depends on where you were on that day that skews the numbers and the amount of support for either side.

Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:49 pm

sarah q

Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 175

See Arrrgh wrote:

sarah q wrote: I've been to a handful of protest in the last year, mostly to document. I can't say I felt that energized by any of them until yesterday.

The Rhode Island Mobilization Committee were out protesting against many of Obama's policies at the Convention Center. We started out as 47-48 and were joined by several people along the way who were clearly just out for a walk. Mothers with children in strollers got in line behind us and marched with our group.

There were a few scattered tea-partiers when we got there, and our group was large and visually intimidating to both the cops and other protesting groups (except Queer Action Rhode Island because we let out a chants early to let them know we supported them).

The tea-partiers had some Obama as hitler signs. They tried to start arguments with a few members or our group, but quickly got shut down as most of them didn't fully understand what they were protesting.

They also thinned out and dispersed fairly quickly upon seeing how organized we were, that we chose to plant ourselves front and center, and that we had the energy and organization to stay together and chat for an hour straight.

I'm going to go back and check the numbers and probably come back and correct this, but I want to say we had around 75 at the high point.

We also had the attention of most of the press.

It was the first time I was energized by a protest and felt like we were accomplishing something.

We scared several tea-partiers away and that felt like a small victory. Strangers on the street joined in, that also felt like a small victory.

Normally I don't do much chanting, I mostly just take pictures and observed, but as we walked past a bunch or racist, bigoted tea-partiers I found myself chanting at the top of my lungs because we out numbered them by a lot and I needed them to know that.

I'm confused by the fact that the journalist who wrote the article about the protests yesterday couldn't tell the difference between 50 - 75 people and "about two dozen."

I'm not, it happens all the time.

I did write them a letter about it.

Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:52 pm

See Arrrgh

Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England

sarah q wrote:

See Arrrgh wrote:

sarah q wrote: I've been to a handful of protest in the last year, mostly to document. I can't say I felt that energized by any of them until yesterday.

The Rhode Island Mobilization Committee were out protesting against many of Obama's policies at the Convention Center. We started out as 47-48 and were joined by several people along the way who were clearly just out for a walk. Mothers with children in strollers got in line behind us and marched with our group.

There were a few scattered tea-partiers when we got there, and our group was large and visually intimidating to both the cops and other protesting groups (except Queer Action Rhode Island because we let out a chants early to let them know we supported them).

The tea-partiers had some Obama as hitler signs. They tried to start arguments with a few members or our group, but quickly got shut down as most of them didn't fully understand what they were protesting.

They also thinned out and dispersed fairly quickly upon seeing how organized we were, that we chose to plant ourselves front and center, and that we had the energy and organization to stay together and chat for an hour straight.

I'm going to go back and check the numbers and probably come back and correct this, but I want to say we had around 75 at the high point.

We also had the attention of most of the press.

It was the first time I was energized by a protest and felt like we were accomplishing something.

We scared several tea-partiers away and that felt like a small victory. Strangers on the street joined in, that also felt like a small victory.

Normally I don't do much chanting, I mostly just take pictures and observed, but as we walked past a bunch or racist, bigoted tea-partiers I found myself chanting at the top of my lungs because we out numbered them by a lot and I needed them to know that.

I'm confused by the fact that the journalist who wrote the article about the protests yesterday couldn't tell the difference between 50 - 75 people and "about two dozen."

I'm not, it happens all the time.

I did write them a letter about it.

See picture above.

Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:56 pm

sarah q

Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 175

IAmNiki wrote: One of the major reasons I don't attend protests anymore is because the central message, if it's actually organized enough to have one, always ends up getting muddied between four or five other groups/causes, all lobbying for the attention and support of the public (or in this case, the president too.) I mean, wouldn't it be more effective to consolidate one message for all of the groups that were there? Instead, you've got smaller fractions of different groups all trying to get a spot in the action, and in the mix of it, all of the messages get lost because it's just "some anti-war radical protesters" and some other people who have nothing to do with the anti-war movement. Not that i'm saying the Queer Action group or any other group shouldn't have been there.. but it seems like wasted time and energy to not form a solid message and get EVERYONE behind it.

I was driving around (see: crawling through traffic) when he came into town, and I was actually in Woonsocket when he arrived. There was a HUGE crowd of tea-party hacks and people holding signs in support of Loughlin and some other Republican politician hopeful. There was NO presence otherwise. I guess it depends on where you were on that day that skews the numbers and the amount of support for either side.

I think different groups just need their voices to be heard for their specific cause. Queer Action Rhode Island were specifically protesting Obama's failure to do away with DADT.

RIMC were actually joined the two different Brown groups, so in that instance several groups did come together for one cause.

It would be hard to get all these groups together for one cause because they aren't all fighting for one cause. Job for Justice for the most part supports the RIMC, but ending the wars isn't their cause.

A lot of the people who came out (minus the tea partiers) were people who voted for Obama and are extremely let down and want him to know that.

Maybe he glimpsed a few of the messages, maybe he didn't. But for a lot of protesters the possibility that he might is worth the time and energy spent.

Last edited by sarah q on Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:00 pm

Jump to:

Goto page 1, 2, 3Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:59 pm